Is there a better way to balance expertise?

[Thrasher92]

I've been thinking about Rogues a lot lately. Since I started 5th edition I have always gotten a little annoyed as a DM that rogues seem to have an easy way to be insanely successful at their chosen 4 skills that they get to add expertise in to grant themselves double their proficiency.

By level 11 a rogue will get at least +8 in their chosen skill and, with reliable talent, they can't roll below a 10. So they are always getting at least an 18, and that's assuming they have a modifier of 0 for the attribute. It is more likely that the chosen skill has a modifier of +4 or +5 which means that they are consistently getting a 22... at least. When they get to have a +5 modifier at 13 they are always getting a 25 for the DC, as a minimum.

Now, a 25 DC is supposed to be a very difficult thing to beat. I understand that many of you reading this are probably thinking "But Thrasher92, they are high level rogues! Their skills SHOULD be that high." Or at least that is the reaction I have gotten before. I disagree. An Arcane Trickster rogue who chose Arcana as a chosen skill will always be far better than a wizard, even though a wizard should certainly know more about Arcana than a half-caster half-martial class like the Arcane Trickster. A level 20 wizard with a 20 in intelligence would only have a +11 in Arcana. An arcane trickster could beat his knowledge at level 9... how does that make sense?

There must be a way to balance this feature, or at the very least I'm willing to hear some better reasons of how this isn't unbalanced.

[djreynolds]

There are now "feats as skills from the UA"

And remember that same wizard can cast time stop or wish or teleport.

Also counterspell is an intelligence check and the only character to add their proficiency to that is an Abjurer Wizard, 10th level

[Lombra]

If you really want to tone it down, I'd make things as follows:

Expertise adds half your proficiency modifier, doesn'
t double it.

Each class except those that get expertise, can choose a skill in which they are proficient (or choose from a discrete list of 2-3 skills for each class), and add double their proficiency bonus to the checks made with that skill.

This way rogues and bards become good at many things, but can't beat classes devoted on their focus (like for example, a cleric in religion, a wizard in arcana, a druid in nature, a ranger in survival, a barbarian in intimidation, a fighter in athletics, a monk in acrobatics... (couldn't think about characteristic skills for warlocks and sorcerers))

[Unoriginal]

There must be a way to balance this feature, or at the very least I'm willing to hear some better reasons of how this isn't unbalanced.

I have one argument

Do you think that the Rogue is so good they need to have one of the few things they are better at than other classes taken away from them?

Do you really think that Rogues being good at skills give them so much of an unfair advantage over the other classes that if you removed it the Rogue would be just as efficient?

Rogues are the skillmonkey martial class. It means that they train their chosen skills more than anyone except the Bards.

Yes, a Rogue with expertise in Arcana will be more trained in the theories of magic than a Wizard, because while the Wizard trained to learn how to cast high level spells and the like the Rogue doubled down on the theory only.


Your post illustrates two issues you have: Rogues succeeding at too many rolls, and Rogue daring to be better than the Wizard in a domain.

For the first issue: how many time do you make PCs have DC 20+ checks where skill proficiency matters?

Is that really a problem to have PCs be successful at ability checks?

For the second issue: it's not an issue, the Rogue has indeed the capacity to be better at Arcana than a Wizard, because they train this skill way more than a Wizard, while a Wizard can do things like create walls of fire that the Rogue will never be able to.

The Rogue is balanced, don't take away from them one of the advantages of playing the class.

[Matticusrex]

Rogues are not stronger than casters. If you are going to start nerfing classes you started on the wrong side.

[Lombra]

Wow someone mentions wizard and another class in the same post and it becomes a casters vs everyone thread again.
The OP made an example. And I understand it.

It's weird for characters that devout a career to a skill, or set of skills, related to their actual competence, to never be the best that there can be at that skill. Practice and theory grow together, so the point "he studies harder while the other fings fireballs" is not really that strong.

But this is a problem that lies within the metagame and within the metagame only. In an actual game, double proficiency in a skill, say religion for a very devout cleric, that gets roleplayed as such, can be rewarded by a DM as a downtime activity or quest reward.

The skill system leaves many unsatisfied, it's too simple for many, and those generalization are the price for simplicity. A wizard who wants to be the best arcanist in the world will have to dip rogue. Does it make sense? Do you justify it as "he took a level worth of time to become an expert in arcana, oh and by the way, he learned a new skill and can now sneak attack, plus smuggling books made him understand the secret code that the thieve's guild use to communicate with each others"? It feels weak and just an excuse to get more points in a skill.

The point is: it isn't unbalanced, but it feels wrong, and blurs immersion.

[Sigreid]

No, it doesn't bother me because that is their shtick. Being legendary at a few skills is really the main point of the class.

[TheUser]

It's balanced.
If you take issue with the skill monkey class succeeding at 4 skills then you need to re-assess how you view campaigns. The DM is not only there to challemge the player but also to provide moments each player can shine.

If a rogue has expertise in Perception and Investigation and took the Observant Feat and now picks up on every trap and secret door with their 20+ passives you don't begrudge the player or the system for building this way; you put traps and hidden foes out their for them to feel their choices have impact.


Expertise is not the problem. You are.

[Unoriginal]

Wow someone mentions wizard and another class in the same post and it becomes a casters vs everyone thread again.
The OP made an example. And I understand it.

I doubt OP would have found weird or in need of change that a Rogue can beat a Barbarian in Str(Athleticism), but I could be wrong.

It's weird for characters that devout a career to a skill, or set of skills, related to their actual competence, to never be the best that there can be at that skill.

Actually the one who devote a career to a skill, or a set of skill, is the best that there can be at that skill, because the one who does that is the Rogue.

The Wizard devote a career to casting spells, and it is not the same as Arcana.

Practice and theory grow together, so the point "he studies harder while the other fings fireballs" is not really that strong.

You would have a point if Int (Arcana) was used to cast spells, but it isn't. Studying Int(Arcana) doesn't teach you to throw fireballs, learning to cast spells does.

Arcana.
Your Intelligence (Arcana) check measures your ability to recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.

A Rogue with expertise in Int(Arcana) will have spent a lot of time learning about the history of spells, how to identify magic items or methods, how the Astral Plane works and what's the difference between a Night Hag and a Devil, while a Wizard will have spend less time doing that and more time learning how to cast spells and go to a different plane by their sheer power.

[JellyPooga]

If you want to limit Expertise to avoid that immersion breaking thing, limit it to Rogue Class skills.

If Rogues "breaking" skill DC's is the problem, then your challenges are not sufficient. At level 11 a Rogue is supposed to be achieving very difficult tasks routinely. Throw the "impossible" at them; i.e. DC 25-30+. A high-level Rogue should be doing things that others cannot because that's the entire point of the Class; Fighters own melee, Wizards break reality and Rogues perform skill challenges beyond the capabilities of even other "mighty heroes". That a Rogue is capable of skill-feats beyond the capabilities of other Classes is the entire point of them. A Rogue can't make three attacks as a single Action, he can't cast Forcecage, he can't call down Divine Intervention...but he can hit DC:30 skill checks at level 5 (at a push), while others cannot.

[Eric Diaz]

Mostly, I agree.

My suggestion: use skill feats from the UA, as others have said. You keep the rogue's shtick and allow characters that really want to be expert to have it too. If you want everyone to be good in a single skill, give everyone a free skill feat, and the rogue a free feat of some other kind.

But it bears repeating: wizard does spells, fighters fight, and rogues have skills. It has been this way since Greyhawk and they were hardly ever overpowered because of that.

[Willie the Duck]

No, it doesn't bother me because that is their shtick. Being legendary at a few skills is really the main point of the class.

Yes, but what I find is that the DCs for things, now lovingly in the DM's hands, tend to shift to match the expectation that someone will have expertise in a skill. Expectation-inflation, if you will. By that measure, I think expertise fails to do its job of making rogues and bards good at skills, only making the odd medium-armor-master fighter with the criminal background who wants to be part of the party's 'team stealth' not need to bother. Stretching the potential skill checks from -5 to +11 into -5 to +17 (at 20th) does little except mean that the DM can put skill-check DCs in the 32-37 range without necessarily making the rogues actually any better at what they do. Even, as a DM, I have a hard time not shifting my expectations like this.

In my games, I have replaced normal expertise with this: "Expertise-chose one skill, expertise will eliminate one level of disadvantage from the skill checks in this skill, or, if there is none, give a flat +2 bonus on the roll." This is still strong (how many things in the game can eliminate disadvantage) without broadly skewing the skill check range and encouraging the DM to change their DCs to match.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, but what I find is that the DCs for things, now lovingly in the DM's hands, tend to shift to match the expectation that someone will have expertise in a skill. Expectation-inflation, if you will. By that measure, I think expertise fails to do its job of making rogues and bards good at skills, only making the odd medium-armor-master fighter with the criminal background who wants to be part of the party's 'team stealth' not need to bother. Stretching the potential skill checks from -5 to +11 into -5 to +17 (at 20th) does little except mean that the DM can put skill-check DCs in the 32-37 range without necessarily making the rogues actually any better at what they do. Even, as a DM, I have a hard time not shifting my expectations like this.

In my games, I have replaced normal expertise with this: "Expertise-chose one skill, expertise will eliminate one level of disadvantage from the skill checks in this skill, or, if there is none, give a flat +2 bonus on the roll." This is still strong (how many things in the game can eliminate disadvantage) without broadly skewing the skill check range and encouraging the DM to change their DCs to match.

DMs that are shifting skill check DCs with level/expertise/etc are not following the guidance anyway. That's warned against in the DMG. You can't fix someone who refuses to read the rules by adding rules. Instead, talk to the DM.

By way of example--I have a rogue in my group. Expertise in stealth. Reliable Talent. His minimum Dexterity (Stealth) check result is a 23. Basically, that means that no one can see him if a) he's trying to hide and b) they're not actively looking for him. Does nothing to help the poor druid who has +2 (no proficiency, low-ish dex) and always rolls horribly. Just allows the rogue a chance to shine.

And as mentioned above, the INT-based skills are about recall of knowledge. There's a long-standing trope of the academic mage--he can't cast a single spell but he knows everything about the theory of magic, about symbols, traditions, etc. A good librarian may not be able to do the actual research, but has a breadth of knowledge that allows her to pull out the right facts pretty much everywhere. Knowing and doing are separate skill sets.

[Sigreid]

Yes, but what I find is that the DCs for things, now lovingly in the DM's hands, tend to shift to match the expectation that someone will have expertise in a skill. Expectation-inflation, if you will. By that measure, I think expertise fails to do its job of making rogues and bards good at skills, only making the odd medium-armor-master fighter with the criminal background who wants to be part of the party's 'team stealth' not need to bother. Stretching the potential skill checks from -5 to +11 into -5 to +17 (at 20th) does little except mean that the DM can put skill-check DCs in the 32-37 range without necessarily making the rogues actually any better at what they do. Even, as a DM, I have a hard time not shifting my expectations like this.

In my games, I have replaced normal expertise with this: "Expertise-chose one skill, expertise will eliminate one level of disadvantage from the skill checks in this skill, or, if there is none, give a flat +2 bonus on the roll." This is still strong (how many things in the game can eliminate disadvantage) without broadly skewing the skill check range and encouraging the DM to change their DCs to match.

That's a flaw in the DM. Don't know what can really be done about that.

[MadBear]

If you find it unbalanced (I don't necessarily think it is, but I've rarely played at levels 10+)

Instead of taking from the rogue, why not at the level rogues get reliable talent also give each class a single skill to get double proficiency on?

So at level 10 fighters get to pick either athletics, or acrobatics to have expertise

rangers get stealth or nature
druids get nature or knowledge religion
wizards get knowledge arcana or history
so on and so forth

This way you're not likely taking away from the rogue, because outside of a few of them, the skills others are taking don't conflict with what a rogue normally pick. They still get 4 as opposed to 1 (or if you really want let the rogue do it two so they have 5 expertise skills while everyone else only gets 1).

This also allows your fighter at level 10 to always be good at athletic checks, your cleric to be great at their religion etc.

seems like a good thing to me.

[Sigreid]

If you find it unbalanced (I don't necessarily think it is, but I've rarely played at levels 10+)

Instead of taking from the rogue, why not at the level rogues get reliable talent also give each class a single skill to get double proficiency on?

So at level 10 fighters get to pick either athletics, or acrobatics to have expertise

rangers get stealth or nature
druids get nature or knowledge religion
wizards get knowledge arcana or history
so on and so forth

This way you're not likely taking away from the rogue, because outside of a few of them, the skills others are taking don't conflict with what a rogue normally pick. They still get 4 as opposed to 1 (or if you really want let the rogue do it two so they have 5 expertise skills while everyone else only gets 1).

This also allows your fighter at level 10 to always be good at athletic checks, your cleric to be great at their religion etc.

seems like a good thing to me.

Personally, I am opposed to giving one classes key defining toys to another class. Not that I'm overly concerned what another group does at their table.

[MadBear]

Personally, I am opposed to giving one classes key defining toys to another class. Not that I'm overly concerned what another group does at their table.

for sure. Like I said, probably wouldn't do it at my table. But if your concern is the trickster rogue will know more about arcana then the wizard, or the thief be better at athletics then the fighter despite much lower strength, I think this is an easy fix. That way at a much higher level then the rogue (meaning less multi-class shenanigans) other classes get 1/4 of access to a super restricted, but fluff appropriate skill.

[tieren]

Is there something a rogue can learn from an arcana check that a wizard can't learn better with the appropriate divination spell?

I haven't really played a high level wizard but I thought that was what those fluffy spells like legend lore and things were for.

It seems to me the wizard studies to learn magical ways to solve his problems, not just to know stuff, thats so mundane.

In a party with a wizard and such an arcane trickster I would suggest they put their heads together when faced with an arcana challenge, mechanically the wizard can be taking the help action to guide the arcane trickster through the bits the wizard is knowledgeable in, and then the DM can say they came up with the solution together.

[Sigreid]

So I just had another thought. I wouldn't fuss too much if a champion fighter's remarkable athelete feature were replaced with expertise in athletics.

[Kobard]

I'm still mulling it over, but I will provide you with several simple suggestions that I have seen bounced around.

1) Expertise provides only Advantage with the skill. So that gives the player an effective +5 to the skill roll, while still not exceeding certain skill caps or breaking bounded accuracy.

2) Expertise provides a bonus die added to the roll. I have seen some suggest a d6, while I have also seen some suggest a die that scales with level or proficiency: i.e., d4, d6, d8. The effect is that the max value that the bonus die adds may be the same as max proficiency (i.e. 8) there is also a lot more variation added through the bonus die mechanic rather than the flat bonus.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Arcana and Religion aren't about the things Wizards and Clerics do. Iirc, they're mainly about the vulnerablility of enemy creature types.

A high level rogue becomes pretty much guaranteed to win skill checks with well defined DCs. A high level wizard is 100% guaranteed to be able to cast spells.

[jas61292]

I personally don't mind expertise, and I actually really like the fact that it lets rogues and bards be the best at skills by a wide margin. However, I do have one issue with it, and it is the same issue have with the Warlock's agonizing blast and a few other class features: auto-scaling.

The vast majority of features in the game require you to stick to a class that has the feature for it to scale. Getting more attacks as a fighter requires you to remain a fighter. Getting more spell slots requires you to be on a class that has spell slots, while getting higher level spells of a particular class requires you to stay in that same class. Getting better (and more uses of) rage requires you to remain a barbarian. But a few features, such as expertise, scale independently of the class that gives them. The fact that you can dip for these features and get the same benefit across 20 levels as the guy that dedicated themselves to the class is poor design, in my opinion. I'd rather see such features give set bonuses (or even non-set extra dice bonuses) that scale up at higher level, rather than be based on a feature that scales independently.

Now of course, for a lot of people who dislike expertise, this is probably the opposite of what they would like, as it makes rogue and bard even harder to match. But to me, that is the point. They are the skillmonkeys; let them do their job better than anyone else.

[qube]

But a few features, such as expertise, scale independently of the class that gives them. The fact that you can dip for these features and get the same benefit across 20 levels as the guy that dedicated themselves to the class is poor design, in my opinion.

Consider that a multiclass lvl 1 rogue only gets two expertises, while full rogue gets more; and gets better with them as well (like unable to roll below 10).

[strangebloke]

That's a flaw in the DM. Don't know what can really be done about that.

Sounds like he could use some guidance... Like maybe a TABLE OF EXAMPLE DCs!!!

:D

Kidding. Not Kidding.

Seriously though, OP, get over it. Rogues are masters of niche knowledge and skill. And even then, they aren't going to completely blow others out of the water if they don't have the right ability scores. A wizard with +5 int and proficiency is only only going to be ahead of of or at least competitive with a +0 INT rogue for most of the game. If the Rogue wants to invest points into INT... he's giving up a a lot of combat utility to get that super-awesome skill check. let him have fun.

Worst case, allow skill expertise feats. If a character wants to be the best at a skill, he should be willing to invest something in that. You're never going to see a stereotypical barbarian studying proper lifting form so that he can get just a few more pounds into his bench press. A stereotypical wizard doesn't spend all his time in reading Planar Geographic, he spends time studying MAGIC. Even your average cleric probably doesn't care that much about other pantheons. Rogues are obsesssive towards their niche.

[TheUser]

In my games, I have replaced normal expertise with this: "Expertise-chose one skill, expertise will eliminate one level of disadvantage from the skill checks in this skill, or, if there is none, give a flat +2 bonus on the roll." This is still strong (how many things in the game can eliminate disadvantage) without broadly skewing the skill check range and encouraging the DM to change their DCs to match.

Rogue's level 11 feature lets you ignore disadvantage... congrats your reworked expertise sucks.

[Sigreid]

Sounds like he could use some guidance... Like maybe a TABLE OF EXAMPLE DCs!!!

:D

Kidding. Not Kidding.
.

Yeah, let's not cross pointless debates where nothing will be solved. 😁

[strangebloke]

Side note, if the concern is about reliable talent rather than Expertise, you could always use the 'auto-success variant' in the DMG where any check that the PC would succeed on with a 5 or less is treated as an auto-success. It doesn't destroy the Rogue's niche, but it does make skills in general stronger.

[Willie the Duck]

Rogue's level 11 feature lets you ignore disadvantage... congrats your reworked expertise sucks.

It lets you treat it as a 10, which is similar, but not the same thing as what you say. I will take that under advisement though.

If you do not care about my impression of you, you would not bother to respond, and yet your behavior is such that I no longer think of you as an adult. You clearly thought that you had the power to hurt me with your words, and yet in doing so ceded to me (by your behavior) any power to do so. Welcome to true impotence.

[Laurefindel]

If the concern is about the rogue being better in Arcana and Religion than the wizard and the cleric, you could limit Expertise to the skills listed in the rogue class (Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Insight, Intimidation, Investigation, Perception, Performance, Persuasion, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth). That solves the issue for the rogue, but not for the bard.

If the concern is about breaking the core principles of bounded accuracy, then Expertise as advantage (as suggested above) comes to mind.

[D.U.P.A.]

A task can be trivial, impossible or possible. Skill checks are for the last ones. As you do not need to roll a check to push an inconscious person, you cannot succeed a stealth check when in open space or jump over a lake, no matter who high you roll. DM should organize various task he and player come out with, like no Sleight of hand check if you want to steal an item from a hidden pocket on a person.